Appeal No. 1997-1842
Application 08/068,878
26. During the double-blind period, the improvement in all the variables was
sustained in the terazosin group but not in the placebo group. In the placebo group,
all the variables reverted back to baseline values (before treatment with terazosin) at
the end of the double-blind period. Fabricius, page 88, first full paragraph, Figures
1 through 5.
27. Fabricius concluded that terazosin had been shown to be effective and safe
in relieving the symptoms of BPH. In particular, terazosin was shown to be effective in
increasing urine flow rates and decreasing residual urine volume when administered
once a day. Fabricius, page 92, last paragraph.
We conclude, on the basis of findings 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24 and 25, that
the treatment period of terazosin is a result-effective variable, and variation of the
period of treatment would be well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art. See
In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Based on finding 26, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily
understood that it is desirable to continue treating patients with symptomatic BPH with
terazosin for as long as the symptoms persist. As illustrated in finding 5, without the
surgical removal of the prostate adenoma, the urinary symptoms of BPH persist for at
least three years. On the other hand, findings 24-26 establish that halting terazosin
treatment results in the reoccurrence of the urinary symptoms of BPH. Thus, the prior
art provides a strong reason, suggestion or motivation to maintain terazosin treatment.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007